The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . approximately $ 51.9 million; on the date the PBA was terminated, the shares were worth approximately $ 34.08 . . .
. . . permit for discharge associated with construction “shall comply with the NOI requirements of § 11-55-34.08 . . . R.] § 11-55-34.08(j). . . .
. . . Under § 34.08, “[a] person may not commence an action challenging the validity of a tax sale after the . . . Id. § 34.08(b). . . . Section 34.08(b) turns on the limitations period in § 33.54. See Tex. . . . but that goes to § 34.08(a), which requires that plaintiffs first "deposit! . . . Tax.Code. § 34.08(a). . . .
. . . Fuchs’s calculations of labor costs are based on 222 additional man-hours at an actual labor rate of $34.08 . . .
. . . U5, at 15 (quoting 12 Eugene McQuillan, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 34.08, at p. 29 (3d ed.1988 . . .
. . . Reskin, Niohols on Eminent Domain § 34.08[1] (3d ed. 1980 & Supp. 2002). . . .
. . . 63.91 12,531% Heparin Lock Flush_$ 38.30 $ 13.60 $ 24.70 182% Metholprednisolone Sodium _Succinate_$ 34.08 . . .
. . . 12.92 1,795,371 DEC 1995 10.14 3,526,586 AUG 1995 17.02 3,118,788 JAN 1996 12.59 3,719,597 SEP 1995 34.08 . . .
. . . Blackmar, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions § 34.08 (3d ed. 1978)), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N . . .
. . . permit for discharge associated with construction “shall comply with the NOI requirements of § 11-55-34.08 . . . H.A.R. § 11 — 55—34.08(j). . . . H.A.R. § 11 — 55—34.08(j) (emphasis added). . . .
. . . Coggeshall, 280 F.2d 654, 659 (D.C.Cir.1960); see generally 4A Moore’s Federal Practice para. 34.08[3 . . .
. . . . §§ 16.032(a)-(e), (n), 16.09, 34.08 (Vernon Supp.1990). . . .
. . . Interest continues to accrue on the debt at a rate of $34.08 a day (approximately $1,022.40 a month). . . . converted to chapter 11 on March 18, 1988. .Interest accrues on the outstanding notes at a rate of $34.08 . . .
. . . See also ¶¶ 26.63[8], 34.08. . . .
. . . Finally, the court in Sims also ruled that the use of the computer reporting service, CANRIS, under § 34.08 . . . where the child may be, to allow entrance for the interview, above examinations, and investigation. § 34.08 . . .
. . . “show facts to indicate that the objection^] [are] not well taken.” 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, ¶ 34.08 . . .
. . . A second constitutional defect in the system of reporting child abuse appears in Section 34.08, which . . . provisions of Title 2, Texas Family Code — Sections 11.10, 11.15, 17.02, 17.03, 17.05, 17.06, 34.-05(c), and 34.08 . . .
. . . each case and must be decided within the discretion of the trial judge. 4A Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 . . .
. . . argument to the court in an effective manner based upon this knowledge. 4A Moore’s Federal Practice, Par. 34.08 . . .
. . . .) § 34.08. . . .
. . . requirements or formalities are imposed for the establishment of good cause. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 . . .
. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice j] 34.08, 2479-2481 (2d Ed.1966). . . .
. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1969). . . .
. . . Cf. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 34.08 (1969). . . .
. . . Par. 34.08, p. 2467. In Crowe v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice, par. 34.08 at 2478 (2 ed. 1968). See Hickman v. . . .
. . . Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950). . . .
. . . Trimble, supra; Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (1968 ed.). . . .
. . . United States, 3 AFTR2d 476, Rabkin & Johnson, Feder.al Income Gift and Estate Taxation, § 34.08(1), . . .
. . . James, Civil Procedure § 6.10 (1965); 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶34.08 (2d ed. 1968). . . .
. . . is in some way necessary to the adequate preparation of the case. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, para. 34.08 . . .
. . . Capitol Transit Co., (D.C., 1948) 7 F.R.D. 732; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶34.08; Developments In The . . .
. . . Ibid., quoting 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1966). . . . . See generally 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (2d ed. 1966). . Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. . . .
. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.08. . . .
. . . .-41, pp. 1445 et seq., ¶ 34.08, pp. 2449 et seq. (2d ed. 1963). But see, Safeway Stores, Inc. v. . . .
. . . prejudice the preparation of his case or cause him hardship or injustice. 4 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 34.08 . . . Coggeshall, supra, 280 F.2d at 659; 4 Moore, supra, para. 34.08, at 2450. Mr. . . .
. . . .) § 34.08, p. 2451, states that: “ * * * good cause is not shown when the mover has the information . . .
. . . Dingfelder, 2 F.R.D. 49 (S.D.N.Y.1941) ; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, ,¶ 34.08 (1963). . . .
. . . , 432, and § 799, pp. 458-459 (Wright ed. 1961); 4 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 34.05, p. 2437, and ¶ 34.08 . . .
. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ff 34.08 (1950). . . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 34.08 (1950). . . .
. . . As stated in 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, pp. 2454-55: “Even less of a showing of good cause should . . .
. . . It has 34.08% of the population of the state, nearly four times the population of the next most populous . . . of Seats in Seats Percentage of Population House Giving 0.7% Provision Full Effect Wayne County 37 34.08 . . . MOST POPULOUS COUNTIES Seats Percentage of Population Percentage of Seats in Senate Wayne County 10 34.08 . . .
. . . Cir., 1960); 6 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 3819; Vol. 10, Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure § 34.08 . . .
. . . Ohio, 1953), 14 F.R.D. 154; 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 2454, ¶[34.08 and cases cited. . . .
. . . R., 17 F.R.D. 324 (S.D.N.Y.1955); 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950); Annot., 73 . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Yol. 4, Par. 34.08. The principles of Hickman v. . . .
. . . Pa.1946); see also, Moore’s Federal Practice, 2d ed., vol. 4, ¶ 34.08, pp. 2450-2451. . . .
. . . . * * *” See also 4 Moore, Federal Practice, par. 26.23 [8], at 1147-1149 and par. 34.08, at 2452-2455 . . .
. . . See, e. g., 4 Moore Federal Procedure, Sec. 34.08 at 2453-54; 2A Barron & Holtzoff Federal Practice and . . .
. . . See 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 2452, § 34.08; New York Central Railroad Company v. . . .
. . . R., 17 F.R.D. 324 (S.D.N.Y.1955); 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08, at 2452 (2d ed. 1950); Annot., 73 . . .
. . . “Your verdict on each of these remaining issues must be unanimous.” . 10 Cyc.Fed.Proc. secs. 34.04, 34.08 . . .
. . . 519, certiorari denied 1950, 339 U.S. 963, 70 S.Ct. 997, 94 L.Ed. 1372; 4 Moore, Federal Practice § 34.08 . . .
. . . constitutes “good cause” rests largely in the discretion of the court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .
. . . clear ■that the matter rests largely in the discretion of the court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . . unobtainable by other means, or alternative modes are much more troublesome. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .
. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice, para. 34.08, p. 2451. See, also, Hickman v. . . . because none of the Government’s case before the Tax Court came from these files. . 4 Moore, supra, para. 34.08 . . .
. . . As a result, the actual interest charged Upon the first note of April 7, 1956, amounted to 34.08%, and . . .
. . . Prac. (2d ed. 1950) section 34.08, some of the situations that have been held to satisfy the requirement . . . information therein through other methods than the rules of discovery.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .
. . . have and that may contain relevant evidence otherwise unavailable. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Section 34.08 . . .
. . . For the period as a whole the average of land equipment on'the job represented 34.08 percent of the value . . .
. . . See 4 Moore, Federal Practice, Par. 34.08. . . .
. . . analysis rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed. 1950) §34.08 . . .
. . . Moore’s Federal Practice, Second Edition, Yol. 4, para. 34.08. . . .
. . . so long as the categories are defined in a reasonably specific manner (4 Moore, Federal Practice, § 34.08 . . .
. . . Vol. 10 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure § 34.08. . . .
. . . defendants’ motion for production should be denied. . 28 U.S.C.A. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 34.08 . . .
. . . Sec. 34.08 regarding what constitutes “good cause”. . 1940, 304 Ill.App. 607, 27 N.E.2d 67. . . .
. . . .) § 34.08. . . .
. . . See Moore’s Federal Practice, §'34.08 on all this. . . .
. . . These allegations are insufficient. 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, 2nd Ed., § 34.08; The Kegums, D.C., 73 . . .
. . . . § 34.08, The Kegums, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 831; Marzo v. . . .
. . . is a reason for ordering production and discovery unuder Rule 34.” 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Sec. 34.08 . . .
. . . In 4 Moore’s Federal Practice, § '34.08 (2nd Edition) the factors required to establish “good cause” . . .
. . . Moore in 4 Moore’s Federal Practice 34.08 indicates that the more liberal view is preferable, and if . . .
. . . Co., D. 0., 8 F.R.D. 616. . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice (2d Ed.) 34.08. . 4 Moore’s Federal Practice ( . . . 2d Ed.) 34.08. . . . .
. . . It sold 98.000. 000.000 feet or 34.08 per cent under long-term pipeline contracts and 641,000,-000 feet . . .
. . . . - Plaintiffs originally claimed $34.08 and payment was made at net fare of $28.38 by the Auditor for . . .
. . . On September 23,1907, the company named the sum of $34.08 as the amount necessary to prepay the freight . . .